Rejected from Academy of Management Discoveries? Where to Submit Next

AMD is not just a broad management outlet with a different title. The live author instructions send manuscripts through the AMD ScholarOne portal, require a structured submission package with the title page removed from the manuscript file, cap the abstract at 200 words, and point authors back to AOM presentation rules such as double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman, and one-inch margins. Those mechanics matter after rejection because AMD can return poorly prepared papers before they ever become a journal-fit debate.

Recent AMD article and editorial examples also show the journal's live discovery vocabulary: 10.5465/amd.2025.0034, 10.5465/amd.2025.0090, and 10.5465/amd.2025.0312 all sit in the current AMD DOI stream. Before you leave AMD, compare your rejected manuscript against that live pattern: does the abstract make a puzzling empirical phenomenon legible in 200 words, or does it read like a conventional theory-test abstract that belongs somewhere else?

For broader journal-family context, keep the Academy of Management Discoveries journal profile open next to the rejection letter. The profile gives the durable scope check; this page gives the post-rejection routing decision.

1. Rebuild for AMD if the data still have a discovery

AMD's own support guidance is unusually important here. A rejection does not automatically close the door to the same data forever. AOM's AMD support note says authors may use the same data in a materially new manuscript, and should explain in the cover letter how the new submission is distinct and how prior concerns were addressed.

Use this route only when the paper genuinely has a better AMD version. The new manuscript should not be the same introduction with a few softer claims. It needs a different discovery frame, a stronger empirical surprise, clearer findings labels, and an explicit answer to the concern that made the editor doubt the first version could pass review.

This is strongest when:

• the editor or action editor invited an AMD workshop
• the dataset reveals a phenomenon current theory does not explain
• the first version was too AMJ-like but the findings can be reframed around empirical surprise
• the methods and evidence were credible, but the paper did not make the discovery legible

It is weak when the rejection said the phenomenon itself is not compelling, the evidence is too thin, or the paper is really a conceptual/theory piece.

2. Academy of Management Journal

AMJ is the sibling route when AMD rejected the paper because it is really hypothesis-testing empirical work. AMD says it publishes empirical exploratory research motivated by underexplored phenomena and unusual empirical patterns, while its page explicitly says it does not publish articles that test hypotheses or are deductively framed.

AMJ is different. AOM's AMJ guidance says submissions need substantial empirical contributions, theoretical contributions, and practical relevance. If your AMD paper has H1 through H5, a theory-fronted introduction, and a results section organized around confirming or disconfirming expected relationships, AMJ may be the correct AOM destination.

Best for: quantitative, qualitative, field, lab, mixed-methods, meta-analytic, or replication work that tests, extends, or builds management theory.

Where it falls short: AMJ is not easier than AMD. If AMD rejected the paper because the empirical design is weak or the contribution is incremental, AMJ reviewers will see that too.

3. Organization Science

Organization Science is the flexible organization-research route when the work is strong but not an AMD discovery paper. It is especially useful for manuscripts where the contribution is organizational, interdisciplinary, and methodologically serious, but the empirical pattern does not create the kind of pre-theory surprise AMD wants.

This is often the right move after AMD when the paper is neither pure AMJ hypothesis testing nor pure AMR theory. Organization Science can handle organization theory, strategy, networks, innovation, learning, technology, institutions, and field or computational designs when the paper changes how organizations are understood.

Best for: organization-theory empirical work where the main value is the organizational mechanism, boundary condition, or social process rather than the AMD-style discovery frame.

Where it falls short: if the paper has no clear organization-level contribution and only reports a local management case, Organization Science will not solve the fit problem.

4. Journal of Management Studies

Journal of Management Studies is a strong route when the AMD paper is innovative, empirical or conceptual, but not a clean fit for the AOM family split. JMS publicly describes its article lane as high-quality Original Articles and Review Articles that advance knowledge in management and organisational studies. It is more pluralistic in methods and traditions than authors sometimes expect.

Use JMS when the paper's value is cross-cutting management or organization scholarship, especially if the manuscript uses qualitative, critical, process, institutional, strategy, or multi-level reasoning that may not fit AMD's empirical-surprise contract.

Best for: empirically rich management and organization studies papers with a broad contribution but no AMD-specific discovery hook.

Where it falls short: JMS still needs a clear contribution. A paper rejected by AMD for weak evidence or unclear novelty should be rebuilt before it goes there.

5. Human Relations

Human Relations is a good route when the manuscript's center is work relationships, organizational work processes, labor, identity, power, or social relations at work. Its submission guidance emphasizes theoretical and/or empirical contribution to work relationships and organizational work processes, plus accessible writing for readers outside the narrow specialty.

This can be a better home than AMD for papers whose empirical setting is rich and socially meaningful but whose contribution is less about "discovery" in AMD's specific sense and more about explaining a work or organization process.

Best for: work, employment, identity, inequality, relational, qualitative, and critical management research where the organization-process insight is the protagonist.

Where it falls short: Human Relations is not a place to hide a vague contribution. The theoretical or empirical advance still has to be explicit.

6. Academy of Management Perspectives

AMP is the AOM route when the paper's strongest value is practitioner translation. If AMD rejected the manuscript because it does not produce a strong enough empirical discovery but it clearly changes how executives, managers, policymakers, or organizations should think about a topic, AMP may be cleaner.

This route requires a different paper, not a renamed AMD manuscript. The argument has to be written for thought leaders and practitioners, with evidence used to support an actionable perspective rather than to satisfy AMD's discovery template.

Best for: management ideas with strong practical implications, field-facing synthesis, and research-grounded recommendations.

Where it falls short: AMP is not a lower bar for weak data. It is a different reader job.

7. Academy of Management Review

AMR is the correct AOM home if the rejected AMD manuscript was actually conceptual theory. AMD's mission page says it does not publish articles motivated solely by theoretical argument rather than exploration of phenomenon or context. If your manuscript has little or no empirical material and the data are only illustrative, AMD was the wrong target.

Move to AMR only if the paper is a genuine theory-development manuscript. If it reports original data, AMR is the wrong direction. In that case, AMJ, Organization Science, JMS, or Human Relations will usually be more plausible.

Best for: conceptual papers that develop new management theory and do not rely on original empirical results as the main contribution.

Where it falls short: AMR will reject empirical papers for scope, and theory reviewers will not accept a relabeled literature review as new theory.

The AMD cascade starts with one fork:

Was the paper rejected because it was not AMD-shaped, or because the manuscript itself was weak?

A fit rejection means the paper may be publishable elsewhere with reframing. A substance rejection means the next journal will probably reject it too unless you fix the underlying manuscript.

Use this ladder:

• If the data are still a compelling exploratory discovery: rebuild for AMD, especially if there was a workshop invitation or the editor's objection was about framing rather than evidence.
• If the paper is empirical and theory-testing: move to AMJ or another empirical management journal.
• If the paper is empirical but broader organization research: Organization Science, JMS, Human Relations, or Organization Studies.
• If the paper is practitioner-facing: AMP.
• If the paper is conceptual: AMR or a conceptual/theory track elsewhere.

There is no automatic cross-journal transfer pipeline that turns an AMD rejection into an AMJ, AMR, Organization Science, or JMS submission with reports attached. Treat the next attempt as a fresh submission unless the decision letter explicitly gives a workshop or resubmission path.

Appeals rarely help. AOM says content-related decisions, including theoretical and methodological issues, are final and not eligible for appeal. Appeal only if there is a real procedural flaw, not because you disagree with the editor's judgment.

In practice, the first three days after an AMD rejection should produce a routing memo, not a new submission file.

Hour 1-12: classify the rejection. Mark every sentence in the decision letter as fit, substance, process feasibility, presentation, or procedural. If the letter says the work is not exploratory, not phenomenon-driven, or not likely to become publishable after one round, treat that as an AMD-specific editorial triage pattern rather than a generic quality judgment.

Hour 12-36: map the specific rejection pattern to a journal family. A hypothesis-testing paper points toward AMJ. A broader organization-process paper points toward Organization Science, JMS, Human Relations, or Organization Studies. A practitioner-facing paper points toward AMP. A conceptual manuscript points toward AMR. If none of those labels fit cleanly, fix the manuscript identity before choosing a target.

Hour 36-72: rewrite only the parts that control fit. For AMD rebuilds, revise the abstract, findings labels, phenomenon setup, and cover letter. For AMJ, rewrite the theory contribution and empirical design framing. For Organization Science, JMS, and Human Relations, rewrite the contribution claim and receiving-audience promise. For AMP or AMR, rebuild the paper type instead of pretending the AMD manuscript can move unchanged.

In our pre-submission review work with Academy of Management Discoveries manuscripts, the rejection fork is usually visible before the decision letter arrives. We look first at the abstract, opening theory section, methods framing, findings labels, discussion opening, cover letter, and AOM Style Guide package. If those components do not make an empirical discovery feel specific, surprising, and feasible for AMD's one-round review discipline, the manuscript often receives a fit rejection even when the dataset is good.

The most common AMD problem is not "bad management research." It is a mismatch between the manuscript's real identity and AMD's discovery contract. Some papers are AMJ-shaped hypothesis tests with AMD vocabulary pasted into the title and introduction. Some are organization-theory papers with strong mechanisms but no puzzling empirical pattern. Some are Human Relations-style work-and-organization manuscripts where the social process is rich but the AMD discovery claim is underdeveloped. Some are AMR-style conceptual papers carrying a small illustrative dataset so they can look empirical. Those manuscripts should not all go to the same next journal.

That is why we treat an AMD rejection letter as a routing artifact, not just a verdict. In our review of these management-journal routing problems, we observe that the editor's first objection usually identifies the receiving journal family before authors realize it.

If the editor questioned whether the phenomenon is underexplored, the repair starts in the abstract and findings labels. If the editor questioned theoretical contribution, AMJ, Organization Science, JMS, or Human Relations may need a different introduction rather than a lightly edited AMD introduction.

If the editor questioned whether the manuscript could become publishable in one round, the next submission needs a deeper rebuild before any new cover letter. If the letter mentions workshop potential or materially new resubmission, AMD may still be the right destination, but only if the next version is genuinely distinct.

Manusights submission analysis treats this as a specific rejection pattern, not a morale problem. The non-obvious move is to preserve the useful part of the AMD attempt: it already tested whether the paper could be sold as exploratory empirical discovery. If that test failed, the next journal should be chosen around the actual manuscript identity, not around prestige distance from AMD.

The practical Manusights test is simple: after the rejection, can a new reader tell from the first page why Academy of Management Discoveries was plausible and why the next destination is now better? If not, the next submission will look reactive. The cover letter should not say "we were rejected by AMD, so we are trying you." It should say why this manuscript's evidence, theory posture, and reader job now match the receiving journal better than the first AMD version did.

Four patterns create the most useful next-route signals.

The paper is AMJ with discovery language pasted on top. The literature review builds hypotheses, the method tests expected relationships, and the results are organized around confirmation. AMD will read this as deductive, not exploratory. The next route is AMJ if the empirical design and theory contribution are strong; otherwise rebuild the manuscript before any next submission.

The phenomenon is interesting, but not surprising enough. The paper has rich data and a meaningful setting, but the finding extends existing theory in a predictable way. That often routes better to Organization Science, JMS, Human Relations, or a subfield management journal, depending on the mechanism and audience.

The manuscript is conceptual or review-like. AMD requires empirical discovery. A paper whose real value is a theory framework, integrative review, or conceptual model belongs at AMR, Journal of Management's conceptual/review lanes, JMS, or a specialty review outlet. Adding a small illustrative dataset does not make it AMD-ready.

The editor sees no one-round path. AMD's single-round discipline matters after rejection. If the editor does not believe the manuscript can become publishable in a timely one-round path, a reject decision may be about process feasibility as much as intellectual merit. That points to a deeper rebuild before the next journal, not cosmetic edits.

Do not erase the AMD decision letter and start over. Translate it.

If the issue was fit, change the target and revise the framing:

• AMJ: make the theory contribution and empirical design central
• Organization Science: state the organization-level mechanism or process
• JMS or Human Relations: foreground the management/organization-studies contribution and methodological tradition
• AMP: translate the evidence into a practitioner-facing argument
• AMR: remove empirical pretense and build a real theory paper

If the issue was substance, revise before choosing a new journal:

• make the empirical surprise explicit in the abstract
• rebuild findings labels around the phenomenon rather than variables
• strengthen the methods and evidence package
• remove hypothesis scaffolding if you still want AMD
• explain why existing theory cannot predict or explain the finding
• make the cover letter name the exact next route and why